What's up with stopping before the Mark of the Beast?*. You going all dispensational on us, Wes?

---------* Which anyone who is anyone knows is 661, not 666

--------------Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

- Gil could could use a new argument that was not generated by the Dogdenator 3000 - Corny could write a blog post that didn't link back to one of his other blogs - Denyse could write something that didn't cause English teachers everywhere to start calling suicide hotlines - Davetard could sell his houseboat and travel to Tibet to seek personal enlightenment - KF could admit, in a post of less than 500 words, that "quasi-latching" and "implicit latching" are just bullshit concepts that he made up to avoid admitting defeat - StephenB could apologize--and actually mean it - Dr. Dr. D could be invited on a reality TV show to get a wardrobe makeover - All of us could vow to never make socks at UD again because, really, getting your laughs from watching a bunch of moderately crazy strangers act like idiots is kind of immature

- Gil could could use a new argument that was not generated by the Dogdenator 3000

Actually, I was considering upgrading the Dodgenator 3000 by adding an option about the "cell as a highly complex information processing machine." But, I cannot decide if that is sufficiently different than "DNA is a computer program."

Thoughts?

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

- Gil could could use a new argument that was not generated by the Dogdenator 3000

Actually, I was considering upgrading the Dodgenator 3000 by adding an option about the "cell as a highly complex information processing machine." But, I cannot decide if that is sufficiently different than "DNA is a computer program."

It seems to me that if there is any “power” to Darwin’s theory, then it must come from its ability to demonstrate how new structures arise, not how previously occurring structures disappeared.

Furthermore, from the writings of Fred Hoyle, and the recent work of Behe (The Edge of Evolution), what we, here at UD would predict, is that the ‘loss’ of teeth or enamel wouldn’t involve more than two amino acid substitutions. This is, more or less, what Meredith, et. al. found. So, whose predictive power is enormous and whose not?

You managed to stir up a couple of commenters over there. Some of them are really odious.

Yes, and I've replied with two additional comments that have yet to be moderated through hours later despite other, later comments having already appeared, as per usual. I've reproduced them at my little blog post:

Furthermore, from the writings of Fred Hoyle, and the recent work of Behe (The Edge of Evolution), what we, here at UD would predict, is that the ‘loss’ of teeth or enamel wouldn’t involve more than two amino acid substitutions. This is, more or less, what Meredith, et. al. found.

Does anyone who has read the paper know where PaV gets this figure from? The closest thing I can find is where they calculate substitution rates in Mysticetes (they get .0081 frameshifts/kb/myr) and where they calculate gene (well technically the survival time of a 3 kb exon) survival time assuming neutral evolution and use nucleotide substitution rate in their calculation, but perhaps I missed something?Or is PaV just making shit up?

--------------Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

If this is the best RD can do then Darwinian evolution is clearly on its last legs

because why?

Frill

Quote

The recent brouhaha concerning Mike Behe at BloggingHeads got me to thinking. (I do that from time to time.)

and it is always so cute!

d-d-d-d-d-d-d-dembski

Quote

His unbridled contempt for Jan Helfeld reminds me of the Darwinists’ contempt for lay people when they ask simple probing questions about their theory. Darwinism has a similar addling effect on even the best-educated minds. It too is a fevered swamp.

good old bill is always so calm cool and collected, reserved even, with his use of language.

now, what, too, is a fevered swamp? darwinism is a fevered swamp? or the similar addling effect on even the best-educated minds?

because i could see how that would be just a little bit more of a fevered swamp than you know the other one.

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

14spark300c09/04/20091:40 pmit seem that why but I think the left over are there to make sure that we do not think there are many designers. no lefter overs means no signs of command design. Also if we think natural section is strong enough to make evolution happen than these non coding parts will go away very quickly. eaten way by deletions. We have genes for laying eggs. Why in hell would natural selection persevere it. It since it does no do any thing it takes up space and energy and in nature is very sightly deleterious. Any deletion will be beneficial since it will reduce energy being wasted and add to our fitness. Since that gene still exist means it sending message to us that one designer created us. Anther thing is rise question about natural selection because it show natural selection does not see there fore it’s creative powers are limited.

THAT

is thinkin'!!!

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

You managed to stir up a couple of commenters over there. Some of them are really odious.

Yes, and I've replied with two additional comments that have yet to be moderated through hours later despite other, later comments having already appeared, as per usual. I've reproduced them at my little blog post:

- Gil could could use a new argument that was not generated by the Dogdenator 3000

Actually, I was considering upgrading the Dodgenator 3000 by adding an option about the "cell as a highly complex information processing machine." But, I cannot decide if that is sufficiently different than "DNA is a computer program."

Thoughts?

Make it a hat trick

DNA is a gay turing machine

Not because Turing was gay, which he was but because the turing machine would have no way of knowing if it was having 'sex' with another turing machine without external information telling it if liked lacy to wear underwear or preferred to watch sport and drink beer.

How will Gordon respond? Will he up the ante with a 5000 word response? Will Lewontin be invoked? How many strawmen will be torched? Inquiring minds want to know!

PS: Blue Lotus? Do something about that OCD. Seriously.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

BTW ID will be falsified if it is ever demonstrated that living organisms can arise from non-living matter via non-telic processes.

The following is half of my design hypothesis:

Observation:

Living organisms

Question

Are living organisms the result of intentional design?

Prediction:

If living organisms were the result of intentional design then I would expect to see that living organisms are (and contain subsystems that are) irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information. IOW I would expect to see an intricacy that is more than just a sum of chemical reactions (endothermic or exothermic).

Further I would expect to see command & control- a hierarchy of command & control would be a possibility.

Test:

Try to deduce the minimal functionality that a living organism. Try to determine if that minimal functionality is irreducibly complex and/or contains complex specified information. Also check to see if any subsystems are irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information.

Potential falsification:

Observe that living organisms arise from non-living matter via a mixture of commonly-found-in-nature chemicals. Observe that while some systems “appear” to be irreducibly complex it can be demonstrated that they can indeed arise via purely stochastic processes such as culled genetic accidents. Also demonstrate that the apparent command & control can also be explained by endothermic and/or exothermic reactions.

Confirmation:

Living organisms are irreducibly complex and contain irreducibly complex subsystems. The information required to build and maintain a single-celled organism is both complex and specified.

Command & control is observed in single-celled organisms- the bacterial flagellum not only has to be configured correctly, indicating command & control over the assembly process, but it also has to function, indicating command & control over functionality.

TARD STUDIES

learn how to beg questions you have never even considered at University of Unprincipled Dissent

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

BTW ID will be falsified if it is ever demonstrated that living organisms can arise from non-living matter via non-telic processes.

That's only because they defined it to include the assertion that evolution is wrong. If they had instead defined it to mean simply that something deliberately engineered life (or some aspect(s) of it), then merely showing the possibility of non-telic evolution wouldn't falsify it.

Here’s another one: F = MA (force equals mass times acceleration) This is a fundamental law of physics, described in the most simple of all mathematical equations, that I use in my work creating finite-element analysis computer simulations of transient nonlinear dynamic systems. (All that means simulating real-life stuff, like cars crashing and figuring out how to design them so that they absorb the energy of impact and protect the human occupants.)

But here’s something very interesting about such a simple mathematical equation as F = MA. Force (e.g., lbf, or pound force) = Mass times Acceleration. Acceleration could be something like feet per second per second (ft. / sec.^2). Solving for Mass with simple algebra we get:

lbf / (ft. / sec.^2) or (lbf times sec.^2) / ft.

Thus, we calculate mass density by dividing mass by volume (in this case ft.^3), and we get:

lbf sec.^2 / ft.^4

How interesting! The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space.

And all of this ultimately comes from 1 apple plus 1 apple equals 2 apples

did you get the pathetic part?

Quote

I use in my work creating finite-element analysis computer simulations of transient nonlinear dynamic systems. (All that means simulating real-life stuff, like cars crashing and figuring out how to design them so that they absorb the energy of impact and protect the human occupants.)

poor frill don't know how much of a tard he is.

not yet that is. until now

Quote

2Blue Lotus09/05/20097:16 pmGil

that I use in my work creating finite-element analysis computer simulations of transient nonlinear dynamic systems.

I have heard about these simulations on the interwebs. The rumour is you introduce an additional element of reality by having the computer running the simulation experence a similar enviroment to that being simulated!

It’s an interesting idea but I think it will have limited pratical use to be honest.

hahahaha

now he knows

Quote

3GilDodgen09/05/20097:38 pm…you introduce an additional element of reality by having the computer running the simulation experence a similar enviroment to that being simulated!

This is a completely incoherent comment, and I have no idea what you are talking about. I’ve just finished a set of FEA simulations at work, the validity of which have been empirically verified through actual physical tests of the systems in question.

If you think FEA has limited practical use I would suggest that you investigate LS-DYNA, the FEA program I use.

tard-link

4GilDodgen09/05/20097:49 pmP.S. LS-DYNA was originally developed in the early 1970s at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, by some of the world’s most brilliant and innovative scientists, primarily for the development and simulation of nuclear weapons.

It works, but you must know how to use it. This is a nontrivial exercise that requires a lot of dedication and effort.

that makes me feel kinda bad for the little guy.

lololololol just for a second, he's a chump

BL

Quote

I take it you don’t throw your computers running the FEA simulations out the back of planes then?

loloololololol

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG